Jack Spencer and Nicolas Loris, SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES 824 wordsThe Washington TimesWATI02English© 2010 Washington Times Library. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved. 8 April 2010
A waste of taxpayer dollars. That's what those who oppose using Yucca Mountain as a nuclear materials repository say.They point to the roughly $10 billion that already has been spent on Yucca, which they say was doomed to fail from the start. Recognizing this, so the argument goes, President Obama is demanding that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) cease its work on the Yucca project - killing it for good.
Seems reasonable. No sense wasting more money on a project with no future. Look closer, though, and it becomes clear that closing Yucca Mountain is the real waste. The real story here is about government ineptitude, not wasteful spending.
CRESP Newstories and Links related to risk-based cleanup of the nation’s nuclear weapons production facility waste sites and cost-effective, risk-based management of potential future nuclear sites and wastes. CRESP seeks to improve the scientific and technical basis for environmental management decisions by the Department of Energy (DOE) and by fostering public participation in that search.
My Blog List
Monday, April 19, 2010
DOE Acceptance Of States' Push To Preserve Yucca Raises Questions
800 words7 April 2010Energy Washington WeekIEPAVol. 7, No. 14
EnglishCopyright © 2010, Inside Washington Publishers. All rights reserved. Also available in print and online as part of www.EnergyWashington.com.
DOE's argument that it has all necessary authority to seek to withdraw its license application for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository -- and its decision not to oppose state and local governments' intervention in the administrative proceedings -- is raising questions among state utility regulators who are trying to decipher DOE's legal strategy.
EnglishCopyright © 2010, Inside Washington Publishers. All rights reserved. Also available in print and online as part of www.EnergyWashington.com.
DOE's argument that it has all necessary authority to seek to withdraw its license application for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository -- and its decision not to oppose state and local governments' intervention in the administrative proceedings -- is raising questions among state utility regulators who are trying to decipher DOE's legal strategy.
From Microsoft to micronuclear ; Turning federal problems into free-market solutions
THE WASHINGTON TIMES 550 words6 April 2010The Washington TimesWATIB02
English© 2010 Washington Times Library. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.
Green groupies of government who fancy themselves on the leading edge of chic-think for their opposition to nuclear power had better rethink their style. Joining - in fact, leading - the ranks of those who think nuke is cool is none other than the man who defines progressive ideas: superentrepreneur Bill Gates.
Those anti-nuke obstructionists suddenly find themselves looking very 20th century as the co-founder of Microsoft moves ahead with futuristic plans to deliver clean, inexpensive power to an energy- needy world.
The software genius already has remade the planet once by leading the personal computer revolution and helping millions of individuals worldwide create wealth. Now he stands to do so again by backing a next-generation nuclear technology called a traveling-wave reactor.
At a February conference in Long Beach, Calif., Mr. Gates waxed enthusiastically about his plans. "If you gave me only one wish for the next 50 years, it'd be to invent the thing that halves the cost of energy with no carbon dioxide. This is the one with the greatest impact," he told the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) Conference, referring to his project.
English© 2010 Washington Times Library. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.
Green groupies of government who fancy themselves on the leading edge of chic-think for their opposition to nuclear power had better rethink their style. Joining - in fact, leading - the ranks of those who think nuke is cool is none other than the man who defines progressive ideas: superentrepreneur Bill Gates.
Those anti-nuke obstructionists suddenly find themselves looking very 20th century as the co-founder of Microsoft moves ahead with futuristic plans to deliver clean, inexpensive power to an energy- needy world.
The software genius already has remade the planet once by leading the personal computer revolution and helping millions of individuals worldwide create wealth. Now he stands to do so again by backing a next-generation nuclear technology called a traveling-wave reactor.
At a February conference in Long Beach, Calif., Mr. Gates waxed enthusiastically about his plans. "If you gave me only one wish for the next 50 years, it'd be to invent the thing that halves the cost of energy with no carbon dioxide. This is the one with the greatest impact," he told the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) Conference, referring to his project.
Utilities Sue U.S. to Halt Nuclear Waste Fees
By MATTHEW L. WALD ///596 words///6 April 2010/The New York Times/
NYTF//Late Edition - Final/EnglishCopyright 2010 The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved.
WASHINGTON -- Sixteen utilities and a trade association sued the Energy Department on Monday to halt the government's collection of nuclear waste disposal fees, arguing that the country no longer had a disposal plan after ruling out Yucca Mountain, Nev., as a repository.
The utilities, which filed the lawsuit in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, jointly pay about $750 million a year -- amounting to a tenth of a cent per kilowatt hour -- into the fund. It now stands at about $24 billion and earns about $1 billion annually in interest.
The money was supposed to pay for the development of the Yucca Mountain repository, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, but the Energy Department said last month that it was formally seeking to withdraw its application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to operate the site.
President Obama had promised while campaigning for office that he would kill the project, in large part at the urging of Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, now the majority leader. But it was also far from clear that the site was technically suitable for waste disposal.
A federal advisory commission on a new waste strategy met for the first time last week, but it is focusing on broad issues like choosing a disposal technology, not finding a new site.
Ellen C. Ginsberg, general counsel for the Nuclear Energy Institute, said there was therefore no longer a basis for collecting the fee. The federal energy secretary makes annual estimates called ''fee adequacy reports,'' based on the cost to build, operate and close up the repository, but there is now no repository to base a cost estimate on, she said.
''Where there is no program being implemented, we don't want to have to pay for something while there's no way to determine whether the number is correct or not,'' she said.
But an Energy Department spokeswoman, Stephanie Mueller, countered that the fees were legally mandated and would eventually go to waste disposal. The advisory commission will recommend how the fees should be handled, she added.
The utilities have been paying into the fund since April 1983. On Friday, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, a Washington-based group that represents members of state public service commissions, said in a court filing that the payments should be stopped. It noted that the money was paid by the utilities, but that ultimately the bill was passed to ratepayers.
Two suits have been filed contesting the Obama administration's decision to stop work on Yucca.
Under contracts with the utilities, the Energy Department was to begin taking delivery of the fuel in 1998. It has been sued by many of them and has been forced to pay damages, mostly for the utilities' costs to build additional storage at the reactor sites.
But the waste impasse has gone on so long that in some places, the reactors have been retired and demolished, leaving nothing but small concrete-and-steel silos holding the waste.
Ms. Ginsberg said she hoped that the department would move that waste to a central location, a step the industry said would reduce costs. But the department argues that the 1982 law under which it collects the waste fees does not permit it to use the money for ''interim storage.''
PHOTO: Spent nuclear fuel being moved at the Indian Point Energy Center in Buchanan, N.Y., in 2008. (PHOTOGRAPH BY MICHAEL NAGLE FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES)
Document NYTF000020100406e6460001w
© 2010 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.DJ Insider
What's New
Privacy Policy
NYTF//Late Edition - Final/EnglishCopyright 2010 The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved.
WASHINGTON -- Sixteen utilities and a trade association sued the Energy Department on Monday to halt the government's collection of nuclear waste disposal fees, arguing that the country no longer had a disposal plan after ruling out Yucca Mountain, Nev., as a repository.
The utilities, which filed the lawsuit in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, jointly pay about $750 million a year -- amounting to a tenth of a cent per kilowatt hour -- into the fund. It now stands at about $24 billion and earns about $1 billion annually in interest.
The money was supposed to pay for the development of the Yucca Mountain repository, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, but the Energy Department said last month that it was formally seeking to withdraw its application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to operate the site.
President Obama had promised while campaigning for office that he would kill the project, in large part at the urging of Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, now the majority leader. But it was also far from clear that the site was technically suitable for waste disposal.
A federal advisory commission on a new waste strategy met for the first time last week, but it is focusing on broad issues like choosing a disposal technology, not finding a new site.
Ellen C. Ginsberg, general counsel for the Nuclear Energy Institute, said there was therefore no longer a basis for collecting the fee. The federal energy secretary makes annual estimates called ''fee adequacy reports,'' based on the cost to build, operate and close up the repository, but there is now no repository to base a cost estimate on, she said.
''Where there is no program being implemented, we don't want to have to pay for something while there's no way to determine whether the number is correct or not,'' she said.
But an Energy Department spokeswoman, Stephanie Mueller, countered that the fees were legally mandated and would eventually go to waste disposal. The advisory commission will recommend how the fees should be handled, she added.
The utilities have been paying into the fund since April 1983. On Friday, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, a Washington-based group that represents members of state public service commissions, said in a court filing that the payments should be stopped. It noted that the money was paid by the utilities, but that ultimately the bill was passed to ratepayers.
Two suits have been filed contesting the Obama administration's decision to stop work on Yucca.
Under contracts with the utilities, the Energy Department was to begin taking delivery of the fuel in 1998. It has been sued by many of them and has been forced to pay damages, mostly for the utilities' costs to build additional storage at the reactor sites.
But the waste impasse has gone on so long that in some places, the reactors have been retired and demolished, leaving nothing but small concrete-and-steel silos holding the waste.
Ms. Ginsberg said she hoped that the department would move that waste to a central location, a step the industry said would reduce costs. But the department argues that the 1982 law under which it collects the waste fees does not permit it to use the money for ''interim storage.''
PHOTO: Spent nuclear fuel being moved at the Indian Point Energy Center in Buchanan, N.Y., in 2008. (PHOTOGRAPH BY MICHAEL NAGLE FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES)
Document NYTF000020100406e6460001w
© 2010 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.DJ Insider
What's New
Privacy Policy
DOE plan to use FY-10 funds to begin Yucca shutdown challenged
Elaine Hiruo and Derek Sands, Washington 437 words5 April 2010Nuclear FuelNUF14, Volume 35, Issue 7English(c) 2010 McGraw-Hill, Inc.
DOE's plan to reprogram $115 million in fiscal 2010 funds to begin the close-out of the Yucca Mountain repository this year wasn't well received by the top Republican on a House Appropriations subcommittee March 24.
Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, the senior Republican on the panel's energy and water subcommittee, criticized DOE's action during a hearing on DOE's FY-11 budget request. "What is your authority for doing it?" Frelinghuysen asked Energy Secretary Steven Chu.
The money was part of the $197 million allocation the Yucca Mountain program this fiscal year to continue activities associated with NRC's licensing review of DOE's repository license application. The FY-10 appropriations bill report for energy and water funding states that a DOE reprogramming request must be submitted to House and Senate appropriators and approved before any funds are shifted to different programs or activities.
"You are using fiscal 2010 funds to restructure the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management," Frelinghuysen said. "I think we need some clarity. I know that determination has been made, but quite honestly, I don't think you have the statutory authority to do it."
Chu told the subcommittee that DOE's general counsel had advised him that he could take such action. Chu repeated that assertion in a March 26 letter to subcommittee chairman Peter Visclosky, an Indian Democrat. "My general counsel has studied this matter very closely, and has advised me that we do have the authority within the law to take the reprogramming actions that we have planned," Chu said. "As you know, the Department of Energy sent you a letter on February 17, notifying you of our intent to reprogram funding for FY 2010 for the Office of Civilian and Radioactive Waste Management."
Chu also said in the letter that he does not believe money should be spent on a licensing process that has been suspended, especially in light of the Obama administration's intent to pursue alternatives to a Yucca Mountain repository. "We need to begin actions now to ensure that the shutdown occurs in an orderly fashion that takes into account the impacts on our employees and their families," Chu wrote. He said the department is trying to help affected employees find other jobs within the government for which they are qualified. He added that "an integral part of our plan is to proceed in a manner that preserves all relevant documents and all relevant learning so that no scientific knowledge is lost."
Document NUF0000020100419e6450000i
DOE's plan to reprogram $115 million in fiscal 2010 funds to begin the close-out of the Yucca Mountain repository this year wasn't well received by the top Republican on a House Appropriations subcommittee March 24.
Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, the senior Republican on the panel's energy and water subcommittee, criticized DOE's action during a hearing on DOE's FY-11 budget request. "What is your authority for doing it?" Frelinghuysen asked Energy Secretary Steven Chu.
The money was part of the $197 million allocation the Yucca Mountain program this fiscal year to continue activities associated with NRC's licensing review of DOE's repository license application. The FY-10 appropriations bill report for energy and water funding states that a DOE reprogramming request must be submitted to House and Senate appropriators and approved before any funds are shifted to different programs or activities.
"You are using fiscal 2010 funds to restructure the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management," Frelinghuysen said. "I think we need some clarity. I know that determination has been made, but quite honestly, I don't think you have the statutory authority to do it."
Chu told the subcommittee that DOE's general counsel had advised him that he could take such action. Chu repeated that assertion in a March 26 letter to subcommittee chairman Peter Visclosky, an Indian Democrat. "My general counsel has studied this matter very closely, and has advised me that we do have the authority within the law to take the reprogramming actions that we have planned," Chu said. "As you know, the Department of Energy sent you a letter on February 17, notifying you of our intent to reprogram funding for FY 2010 for the Office of Civilian and Radioactive Waste Management."
Chu also said in the letter that he does not believe money should be spent on a licensing process that has been suspended, especially in light of the Obama administration's intent to pursue alternatives to a Yucca Mountain repository. "We need to begin actions now to ensure that the shutdown occurs in an orderly fashion that takes into account the impacts on our employees and their families," Chu wrote. He said the department is trying to help affected employees find other jobs within the government for which they are qualified. He added that "an integral part of our plan is to proceed in a manner that preserves all relevant documents and all relevant learning so that no scientific knowledge is lost."
Document NUF0000020100419e6450000i
Blue ribbon panel might consider lessons learned from Yucca project
Elaine Hiruo, Washington /908 words/5 April 2010/Nuclear Fuel///NUF/13/Volume 35, Issue 7/English/
(c) 2010 McGraw-Hill, Inc.
/
The blue ribbon commission on nuclear waste might be willing to consider lessons learned from the process used by the Yucca Mountain repository project in Nevada, but it will not look at decisions about the site itself, co-chairmen Lee Hamilton and Brent Scowcroft said March 26 after the panel's first two-day meeting ended./
The 15-member commission was established by President Barack Obama's administration to conduct a comprehensive review of waste management alternatives to a Yucca Mountain repository and to make recommendations for a new national policy for managing utility spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste.
The charter of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future is broad, but it doesn't require the commission to recommend specific sites, Scowcroft told reporters after the commission meeting. But Hamilton said there is value in learning from past experiences.
"This is an independent commission," Hamilton said, "and we will draw our own conclusions, develop our own alternatives, make our own recommendations."
Hamilton's comment came a day after Energy Secretary Steven Chu, in his opening remarks to the commission, said the panel should keep its focus on the future and not spend time looking at the past and at the now-scuttled Yucca Mountain project.
Chu called for a broad, integrated review of factors early in the fuel cycle, such as advanced reactor technologies, saying they could affect the waste stream at the back end of the fuel cycle. "One really cannot predict what technologies will be available 50 to 150 years from now," Chu said. But, he added, the commission should review all possible ways to reduce the volume of nuclear waste slated for disposal. The task before the panel, according to Hamilton, is "daunting."
The administration intends to scrap the country's existing policy on nuclear waste that would have required utility spent fuel and DOE highly radioactive defense waste to be disposed of in a repository at Yucca Mountain, some 95 miles outside Las Vegas. DOE filed a motion with an NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on March 3 to withdraw its Yucca Mountain repository license application with prejudice, a move that if approved could prevent the department from ever resubmitting that application to NRC. That action comes after DOE has spent more than two decades and $10 billion on work associated with a Yucca Mountain repository. It also comes nearly two years after DOE rushed to submit a repository license application to NRC and to move the program forward.
It could be June, however, before the ASLB takes up the DOE motion to withdraw the application. The licensing board has said that it will deal first with the petitions filed with the board seeking intervenor status in the licensing proceeding before considering the DOE motion.
Chu told the panel to review an assortment of waste streams, including low-level waste and highly radioactive defense waste, both of which are on DOE nuclear defense sites around the country. Chu asked that the commission make recommendations on how the department can effectively and efficiently meet its obligations to manage and cleanup this waste.
But he also told the panel it will review the Nuclear Waste Fund, a federal trust fund that now contains $21 billion in ratepayer payments and interest. Congress established the fund in 1982 to bankroll the DOE civilian nuclear waste program. Based on a 1 mill, or one-tenth of a cent, fee charged nuclear utility customers for every kilowatt-hour of nuclear-generated electricity sold, waste fee collections currently total more than $770 million a year.
Chu has said the department will continue collecting the waste fee during the development of a new national policy on radioactive waste, noting that money will be needed to implement the commission's recommendations.
Under its charter, the commission is to submit its final report and recommendations to Chu within 24 months. "We would like to finish before the two years expire, but we don't know at this time if we can make it," Hamilton told reporters.
The commission must now develop a work plan that will map out what it will evaluate and how it will do that. Commission member Richard Meserve suggested subcommittees be established and staffed to help the commission gather and digest information. Spent fuel reprocessing, long-term storage, and disposal could be the focus of three separate subcommittees, he said. The number of subcommittees will not necessarily be limited to three.
Others suggestions offered by subcommittee members included having an energy economist on staff and making use of the expertise of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, an independent panel Congress established to provide technical oversight to the DOE civilian nuclear waste program.
During the public comment period March 26, Jack Spencer, a nuclear energy research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, urged the commission to put the Yucca Mountain project back in play, saying the panel should use this time to "recalibrate" DOE's approach.
Nevada, which has fought the Yucca Mountain project for decades, should have more control over the project, Spencer said. He also said that the repository program "has to be rooted in the market place" to be successful. More control should be placed in the hands of the companies that produce the waste, he said. That, according to Spencer, should "highly incentivize" them to find a solution.
Document NUF0000020100419e6450000h
(c) 2010 McGraw-Hill, Inc.
/
The blue ribbon commission on nuclear waste might be willing to consider lessons learned from the process used by the Yucca Mountain repository project in Nevada, but it will not look at decisions about the site itself, co-chairmen Lee Hamilton and Brent Scowcroft said March 26 after the panel's first two-day meeting ended./
The 15-member commission was established by President Barack Obama's administration to conduct a comprehensive review of waste management alternatives to a Yucca Mountain repository and to make recommendations for a new national policy for managing utility spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste.
The charter of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future is broad, but it doesn't require the commission to recommend specific sites, Scowcroft told reporters after the commission meeting. But Hamilton said there is value in learning from past experiences.
"This is an independent commission," Hamilton said, "and we will draw our own conclusions, develop our own alternatives, make our own recommendations."
Hamilton's comment came a day after Energy Secretary Steven Chu, in his opening remarks to the commission, said the panel should keep its focus on the future and not spend time looking at the past and at the now-scuttled Yucca Mountain project.
Chu called for a broad, integrated review of factors early in the fuel cycle, such as advanced reactor technologies, saying they could affect the waste stream at the back end of the fuel cycle. "One really cannot predict what technologies will be available 50 to 150 years from now," Chu said. But, he added, the commission should review all possible ways to reduce the volume of nuclear waste slated for disposal. The task before the panel, according to Hamilton, is "daunting."
The administration intends to scrap the country's existing policy on nuclear waste that would have required utility spent fuel and DOE highly radioactive defense waste to be disposed of in a repository at Yucca Mountain, some 95 miles outside Las Vegas. DOE filed a motion with an NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on March 3 to withdraw its Yucca Mountain repository license application with prejudice, a move that if approved could prevent the department from ever resubmitting that application to NRC. That action comes after DOE has spent more than two decades and $10 billion on work associated with a Yucca Mountain repository. It also comes nearly two years after DOE rushed to submit a repository license application to NRC and to move the program forward.
It could be June, however, before the ASLB takes up the DOE motion to withdraw the application. The licensing board has said that it will deal first with the petitions filed with the board seeking intervenor status in the licensing proceeding before considering the DOE motion.
Chu told the panel to review an assortment of waste streams, including low-level waste and highly radioactive defense waste, both of which are on DOE nuclear defense sites around the country. Chu asked that the commission make recommendations on how the department can effectively and efficiently meet its obligations to manage and cleanup this waste.
But he also told the panel it will review the Nuclear Waste Fund, a federal trust fund that now contains $21 billion in ratepayer payments and interest. Congress established the fund in 1982 to bankroll the DOE civilian nuclear waste program. Based on a 1 mill, or one-tenth of a cent, fee charged nuclear utility customers for every kilowatt-hour of nuclear-generated electricity sold, waste fee collections currently total more than $770 million a year.
Chu has said the department will continue collecting the waste fee during the development of a new national policy on radioactive waste, noting that money will be needed to implement the commission's recommendations.
Under its charter, the commission is to submit its final report and recommendations to Chu within 24 months. "We would like to finish before the two years expire, but we don't know at this time if we can make it," Hamilton told reporters.
The commission must now develop a work plan that will map out what it will evaluate and how it will do that. Commission member Richard Meserve suggested subcommittees be established and staffed to help the commission gather and digest information. Spent fuel reprocessing, long-term storage, and disposal could be the focus of three separate subcommittees, he said. The number of subcommittees will not necessarily be limited to three.
Others suggestions offered by subcommittee members included having an energy economist on staff and making use of the expertise of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, an independent panel Congress established to provide technical oversight to the DOE civilian nuclear waste program.
During the public comment period March 26, Jack Spencer, a nuclear energy research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, urged the commission to put the Yucca Mountain project back in play, saying the panel should use this time to "recalibrate" DOE's approach.
Nevada, which has fought the Yucca Mountain project for decades, should have more control over the project, Spencer said. He also said that the repository program "has to be rooted in the market place" to be successful. More control should be placed in the hands of the companies that produce the waste, he said. That, according to Spencer, should "highly incentivize" them to find a solution.
Document NUF0000020100419e6450000h
DOE urged to establish 'Energy Parks' program so workers won't be furloughed
1136 words5 April 2010Inside EnergyIEISSN: 1556-3928English(c) 2010 McGraw-Hill, Inc.
An Energy Department initiative to allow developers to build wind farms, solar plants and other renewable-energy projects at remediated nuclear weapons sites has drawn keen interest from private industry and communities in the shadows of those defunct weapons plants.
Supporters say the so-called Energy Parks initiative will provide new employment opportunities to DOE cleanup workers who would otherwise work themselves out of their jobs when the sites where they work are cleaned up. But some observers fear that DOE will not get the initiative up and running before it spends all of the $6 billion in economic stimulus that it received for environmental cleanup, and that thousands of workers would have to be furloughed as a result.
"A year and a half from now, the cliff arrives," said Lawrence Papay, an energy consultant who sits on DOE's Environmental Management Advisory Board. "EM is going to be left holding the bag of a lot of people who can be employed and don't have prospects moving forward. Even if you were to act today, I am afraid you would not have enough time."
DOE's Environmental Management Office would like to draw on resources from across the department to help with Energy Parks, including tapping into its offices of energy efficiency and renewable energy, science and fossil energy. But to date, EM has not put a formal structure in place to do that.
At a meeting in Washington last week, some members of the EM advisory board said that without a formal structure in place, there could be massive job losses at some of the cleanup sites as the economic stimulus money runs out. The agency must have that money out the door by September 2011, and DOE expects to have completed cleanup on vast stretches of its land by that time.
James Antizzo, the senior coordinator of the Energy Parks initiative, said at the meeting that "conceptually, there is a lot of buy in" for the effort. But Antizzo acknowledged that the initiative "has not been blessed by [senior DOE] management, per se."
Ines Triay, DOE's assistant secretary for environmental management, said at the meeting that the department would soon form a task force to coordinate Energy Parks-related work across various DOE offices.
Despite the lack of a formal plan from DOE, interest has been strong in the Energy Parks initiative. The Mid-Columbia Energy Initiative, put together by a local-government-run development group, is working on acquiring up to 60 square miles of cleaned-up land at the Hanford Site in Washington state for use in future energy projects, according to Antizzo. Other projects are also in the works at the Pantex site in Texas, Oak Ridge in Tennessee and Mound in southern Ohio, he said.
EM received $6 billion in last year's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and a big fraction of the funds are going towards reducing the size of the so-called "cleanup footprint," or the amount of land DOE is responsible for cleaning up.
Using the stimulus funds, EM plans to reduce its overall footprint by some 450 square miles, or by 50% of its current size, by September 2011.
So far, EM has spent $1.5 billion of its $6 billion in stimulus funds, and Energy Secretary Steven Chu said last month that the cleanup program has created 14,000 jobs. Those jobs could dry up with the end of Recovery Act spending.
DOE contractors have used subcontractors for much of the work, and maintaining long-term jobs at the sites in the wake of the Recovery Act has emerged as a primary concern of local community groups. The Energy Communities Alliance, which represents communities near DOE sites, has been a strong advocate of Energy Parks.
Several ECA local-government members have drafted a one-page legislative proposal legislation that would formally establish the Energy Parks program. Seth Kirshenberg, ECA's executive director, said members of his group are working with senators and members of Congress to get the bill introduced.
The current initiative would leave it up to local communities to push for Energy Parks, but the draft legislation from ECA members would establish a formal program at DOE to promote the use of former defense nuclear facilities, such as Hanford and the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.
It is unclear whether DOE would support legislation. In remarks to the board, Merle Sykes, the office's chief of business operations, said that the administration would consider supporting legislation.
"I have actually looked at the legislation. We'll see if there is not a way we can figure out how the administration can support that in a more active way," Sykes said. According to Triay, the purpose of the program is simply to have DOE act as a facilitator for communities hoping to bring in energy projects.
Even after a task force is in place, DOE still faces challenges, according to Antizzo. It must perform an audit of available resources, develop site plans, and determine a strategy for performing the environmental reviews required under the National Environmental Policy Act.
While the Energy Parks Initiative is being thrashed out within the department, some of the sites have been pursuing similar efforts on their own for years, such as land transfers and leasing at the Oak Ridge Site, according to Antizzo.
"I think the idea with the Energy Parks Initiative is to kind of make it a little more strategic, so that you have in addition to the opportunities that come up as an individual opportunity, how do we then take the opportunities and link them to a national strategy," he said.
Still, some local advocacy groups warned that DOE must act in a transparent manner if it pursues its initiative to build renewable-energy projects on remidiated nuclear weapons sites. Tom Carpenter, the executive director of Hanford Challenge, a watchdog group near the Hanford Site, said that his major concern was the lack of transparency in the Energy Parks process.
"I understand the jobs issue," Carpenter said. "But it needs to be done in an open and transparent process with buy in from the regional stakeholders, and not just make it happen in the dark, behind the scenes and hope to get away with it."
Carpenter added that local stakeholders have a number of tools at their disposal, including lawsuits, to delay or derail Energy Parks projects that are not done openly.
"I don't think the Department of Energy has any business whatsoever deciding to use a part of that site, whose future has been undetermined, and just start leasing or selling land off of it without wide agreement," he said. "They can expect resistance." — Derek Sands
Document IE00000020100419e6450000e
An Energy Department initiative to allow developers to build wind farms, solar plants and other renewable-energy projects at remediated nuclear weapons sites has drawn keen interest from private industry and communities in the shadows of those defunct weapons plants.
Supporters say the so-called Energy Parks initiative will provide new employment opportunities to DOE cleanup workers who would otherwise work themselves out of their jobs when the sites where they work are cleaned up. But some observers fear that DOE will not get the initiative up and running before it spends all of the $6 billion in economic stimulus that it received for environmental cleanup, and that thousands of workers would have to be furloughed as a result.
"A year and a half from now, the cliff arrives," said Lawrence Papay, an energy consultant who sits on DOE's Environmental Management Advisory Board. "EM is going to be left holding the bag of a lot of people who can be employed and don't have prospects moving forward. Even if you were to act today, I am afraid you would not have enough time."
DOE's Environmental Management Office would like to draw on resources from across the department to help with Energy Parks, including tapping into its offices of energy efficiency and renewable energy, science and fossil energy. But to date, EM has not put a formal structure in place to do that.
At a meeting in Washington last week, some members of the EM advisory board said that without a formal structure in place, there could be massive job losses at some of the cleanup sites as the economic stimulus money runs out. The agency must have that money out the door by September 2011, and DOE expects to have completed cleanup on vast stretches of its land by that time.
James Antizzo, the senior coordinator of the Energy Parks initiative, said at the meeting that "conceptually, there is a lot of buy in" for the effort. But Antizzo acknowledged that the initiative "has not been blessed by [senior DOE] management, per se."
Ines Triay, DOE's assistant secretary for environmental management, said at the meeting that the department would soon form a task force to coordinate Energy Parks-related work across various DOE offices.
Despite the lack of a formal plan from DOE, interest has been strong in the Energy Parks initiative. The Mid-Columbia Energy Initiative, put together by a local-government-run development group, is working on acquiring up to 60 square miles of cleaned-up land at the Hanford Site in Washington state for use in future energy projects, according to Antizzo. Other projects are also in the works at the Pantex site in Texas, Oak Ridge in Tennessee and Mound in southern Ohio, he said.
EM received $6 billion in last year's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and a big fraction of the funds are going towards reducing the size of the so-called "cleanup footprint," or the amount of land DOE is responsible for cleaning up.
Using the stimulus funds, EM plans to reduce its overall footprint by some 450 square miles, or by 50% of its current size, by September 2011.
So far, EM has spent $1.5 billion of its $6 billion in stimulus funds, and Energy Secretary Steven Chu said last month that the cleanup program has created 14,000 jobs. Those jobs could dry up with the end of Recovery Act spending.
DOE contractors have used subcontractors for much of the work, and maintaining long-term jobs at the sites in the wake of the Recovery Act has emerged as a primary concern of local community groups. The Energy Communities Alliance, which represents communities near DOE sites, has been a strong advocate of Energy Parks.
Several ECA local-government members have drafted a one-page legislative proposal legislation that would formally establish the Energy Parks program. Seth Kirshenberg, ECA's executive director, said members of his group are working with senators and members of Congress to get the bill introduced.
The current initiative would leave it up to local communities to push for Energy Parks, but the draft legislation from ECA members would establish a formal program at DOE to promote the use of former defense nuclear facilities, such as Hanford and the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.
It is unclear whether DOE would support legislation. In remarks to the board, Merle Sykes, the office's chief of business operations, said that the administration would consider supporting legislation.
"I have actually looked at the legislation. We'll see if there is not a way we can figure out how the administration can support that in a more active way," Sykes said. According to Triay, the purpose of the program is simply to have DOE act as a facilitator for communities hoping to bring in energy projects.
Even after a task force is in place, DOE still faces challenges, according to Antizzo. It must perform an audit of available resources, develop site plans, and determine a strategy for performing the environmental reviews required under the National Environmental Policy Act.
While the Energy Parks Initiative is being thrashed out within the department, some of the sites have been pursuing similar efforts on their own for years, such as land transfers and leasing at the Oak Ridge Site, according to Antizzo.
"I think the idea with the Energy Parks Initiative is to kind of make it a little more strategic, so that you have in addition to the opportunities that come up as an individual opportunity, how do we then take the opportunities and link them to a national strategy," he said.
Still, some local advocacy groups warned that DOE must act in a transparent manner if it pursues its initiative to build renewable-energy projects on remidiated nuclear weapons sites. Tom Carpenter, the executive director of Hanford Challenge, a watchdog group near the Hanford Site, said that his major concern was the lack of transparency in the Energy Parks process.
"I understand the jobs issue," Carpenter said. "But it needs to be done in an open and transparent process with buy in from the regional stakeholders, and not just make it happen in the dark, behind the scenes and hope to get away with it."
Carpenter added that local stakeholders have a number of tools at their disposal, including lawsuits, to delay or derail Energy Parks projects that are not done openly.
"I don't think the Department of Energy has any business whatsoever deciding to use a part of that site, whose future has been undetermined, and just start leasing or selling land off of it without wide agreement," he said. "They can expect resistance." — Derek Sands
Document IE00000020100419e6450000e
Tests show DOE waste meets state standards
By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune/619 words/5 April 2010/The Salt Lake Tribune
SLTR/English
© 2010 The Salt Lake Tribune. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Samples of the depleted uranium waste from a government cleanup in South Carolina show that it meets a key safety limit, said the Utah Department of Environmental Quality.
State regulators heard about the test results Monday from a Tennessee laboratory, which sampled 171 of the 5,400 drums sent most recently to Utah from the Savannah River Project cleanup for technetium-99, a waste product of reprocessing.
SLTR/English
© 2010 The Salt Lake Tribune. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Samples of the depleted uranium waste from a government cleanup in South Carolina show that it meets a key safety limit, said the Utah Department of Environmental Quality.
State regulators heard about the test results Monday from a Tennessee laboratory, which sampled 171 of the 5,400 drums sent most recently to Utah from the Savannah River Project cleanup for technetium-99, a waste product of reprocessing.
Aiken County says U.S. can't close Yucca
By Julia Sellers, The Augusta Chronicle, Ga. /McClatchy-Tribune Regional News//////390 words/5 April 2010/The Augusta Chronicle (MCT)KRTAG/EnglishDistributed by McClatchy - Tribune Information Services
/Apr. 5--AIKEN -- Aiken County stands by its petition against the closing of Yucca Mountain, saying the Department of Energy can't back out of its agreement to ship nuclear waste to the Nevada repository unless Congress amends the law or its license is turned down for scientific reasons.
The county filed its 15-page response Friday with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Last week the Department of Energy and a handful of regulatory agencies said Aiken County was premature in filing a suit against the Obama's administration's plans to terminate the site.
Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, was being designed to accommodate radioactive material stored at 121 temporary sites in 39 states, including SRS, where high-level wastes are stored in steel cylinders that were to be shipped elsewhere. It also would have housed 70,000 tons of waste from the nation's 104 commercial reactors, which are generating about 2,000 additional tons of spent fuel each year. President Obama's 2011 budget does not include funding for the facility, which has been in the works for more than 25 years.
/Apr. 5--AIKEN -- Aiken County stands by its petition against the closing of Yucca Mountain, saying the Department of Energy can't back out of its agreement to ship nuclear waste to the Nevada repository unless Congress amends the law or its license is turned down for scientific reasons.
The county filed its 15-page response Friday with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Last week the Department of Energy and a handful of regulatory agencies said Aiken County was premature in filing a suit against the Obama's administration's plans to terminate the site.
Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, was being designed to accommodate radioactive material stored at 121 temporary sites in 39 states, including SRS, where high-level wastes are stored in steel cylinders that were to be shipped elsewhere. It also would have housed 70,000 tons of waste from the nation's 104 commercial reactors, which are generating about 2,000 additional tons of spent fuel each year. President Obama's 2011 budget does not include funding for the facility, which has been in the works for more than 25 years.
NUCLEAR WASTE; State regulators sue DOE over repository fees
Katherine Ling, E&E reporter //573 words/5 April 2010GreenwireGRWREnglish© 2010 E&E Publishing, LLC. All Rights Reserved
The nation's state utility regulators are taking legal action against the Energy Department to stop the government from collecting fees to manage spent nuclear fuel.
The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners filed a lawsuit Friday in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia seeking to overturn DOE's decision in October not to suspend payments into the Nuclear Waste Fund.
NARUC asked DOE last July to suspend the one-tenth-cent-per-kilowatt-hour fee paid by customers of nuclear-powered electricity because the Obama administration planned to cancel the waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev., and establish a "blue ribbon" commission to consider alternative waste disposal options.
"There is no clearly defined program for disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Therefore, there is no basis to assess the adequacy of fees that continue to be paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund," the NARUC letter said. "If we are going to pause to reconsider disposal options, we feel it is also appropriate to pause the fee payments."
The nation's state utility regulators are taking legal action against the Energy Department to stop the government from collecting fees to manage spent nuclear fuel.
The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners filed a lawsuit Friday in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia seeking to overturn DOE's decision in October not to suspend payments into the Nuclear Waste Fund.
NARUC asked DOE last July to suspend the one-tenth-cent-per-kilowatt-hour fee paid by customers of nuclear-powered electricity because the Obama administration planned to cancel the waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev., and establish a "blue ribbon" commission to consider alternative waste disposal options.
"There is no clearly defined program for disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Therefore, there is no basis to assess the adequacy of fees that continue to be paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund," the NARUC letter said. "If we are going to pause to reconsider disposal options, we feel it is also appropriate to pause the fee payments."
GOP Seeks DOE Legal Justification For Plan To Close Nuclear Waste Office
832 words/5 April 2010/Superfund Report/SUFR/Vol. 24, No. 7/English/Copyright (c) 2010 Inside Washington Publishers. All Rights Reserved. Also available in print and online as part of www.InsideEPA.com.
Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee's energy panel are pushing the Energy Department (DOE) to provide a legal justification for its proposed closure of its civilian nuclear waste office that manages the Yucca Mountain repository program, warning that the department first needs congressional approval to scrap the office.But DOE, which outlined the closure plan in its fiscal year 2011 budget request, claims that its general counsel believes the department has existing authority to restructure and shut down the office.
The Republicans are now trying to form a bipartisan group of lawmakers to meet with the department's general counsel to resolve the issue ideally before they consider DOE's pending FY11 funding bill, though congressional sources say that the GOP lawmakers are not looking to block DOE's budget bill over the issue.DOE is proposing to close its Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) and fold some of its duties into the nuclear energy office run by Assistant Secretary Warren Miller.
Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee's energy panel are pushing the Energy Department (DOE) to provide a legal justification for its proposed closure of its civilian nuclear waste office that manages the Yucca Mountain repository program, warning that the department first needs congressional approval to scrap the office.But DOE, which outlined the closure plan in its fiscal year 2011 budget request, claims that its general counsel believes the department has existing authority to restructure and shut down the office.
The Republicans are now trying to form a bipartisan group of lawmakers to meet with the department's general counsel to resolve the issue ideally before they consider DOE's pending FY11 funding bill, though congressional sources say that the GOP lawmakers are not looking to block DOE's budget bill over the issue.DOE is proposing to close its Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) and fold some of its duties into the nuclear energy office run by Assistant Secretary Warren Miller.
Obama panel examines nation's nuclear waste issues
Judy Fahys By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune881 words4 April 2010The Salt Lake Tribune
SLTREnglish© 2010 The Salt Lake Tribune. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Two recent announcements from the Obama administration have energized nuclear power advocates. The first is his plan to offer $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for new nuclear plants; the other, a task force to look at the dangerously radioactive waste often blamed for delaying what some anticipate will be a nuclear renaissance.
More than a few Utahns are keeping an eye on the new Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future. Tooele County includes the nation's largest low-level radioactive waste disposal site, the mile- square EnergySolutions landfill, and the nation's only high-level nuclear site licensed in the past three decades, the derailed Private Fuel Storage facility on the Goshute reservation in Skull Valley.
SLTREnglish© 2010 The Salt Lake Tribune. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.
Two recent announcements from the Obama administration have energized nuclear power advocates. The first is his plan to offer $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for new nuclear plants; the other, a task force to look at the dangerously radioactive waste often blamed for delaying what some anticipate will be a nuclear renaissance.
More than a few Utahns are keeping an eye on the new Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future. Tooele County includes the nation's largest low-level radioactive waste disposal site, the mile- square EnergySolutions landfill, and the nation's only high-level nuclear site licensed in the past three decades, the derailed Private Fuel Storage facility on the Goshute reservation in Skull Valley.
Seeking a 'Plan B' for nuclear waste: With Yucca Mountain site dead, billions paid into project are in limbo.
Margaret Newkirk /Staff/1343 words/4 April 2010/The Atlanta Journal - Constitution
Copyright (c) 2010 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, All Rights Reserved
Georgia electric customers paid the U.S. government more than $701 million over nearly three decades, in exchange for a service now 12 years overdue. Today, the U.S. government is as far away from delivering on its part of the bargain as it has ever been. Electric customers not only can't easily get their money back --- Congress borrowed it for other things --- but must keep on paying. That's a snapshot view of the nation's Nuclear Waste Fund.
The fund was supposed to pay the U.S. Department of Energy to remove radioactive waste from power plants. But that hasn't happened, and the recent decision to scrap the Yucca Mountain waste project in Nevada has left the DOE essentially in a position of starting over.
Copyright (c) 2010 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, All Rights Reserved
Georgia electric customers paid the U.S. government more than $701 million over nearly three decades, in exchange for a service now 12 years overdue. Today, the U.S. government is as far away from delivering on its part of the bargain as it has ever been. Electric customers not only can't easily get their money back --- Congress borrowed it for other things --- but must keep on paying. That's a snapshot view of the nation's Nuclear Waste Fund.
The fund was supposed to pay the U.S. Department of Energy to remove radioactive waste from power plants. But that hasn't happened, and the recent decision to scrap the Yucca Mountain waste project in Nevada has left the DOE essentially in a position of starting over.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Bipartisan group of House members float plan to block closure (03/24/2010)
Katherine Ling, E&E reporter
A group of House Democrats and Republicans introduced a resolution yesterday to stop the Obama administration from ending the nuclear waste repository program at Yucca Mountain, Nev., and to save important project data.
The resolution of disapproval aims to stop the Energy Department from using appropriated funds to end the project and to preserve "all scientific and site specific file and data related to Yucca Mountain," said a statement from Rep. Doc Hastings' (R-Wash.) office.
Joining Hastings on the measure are Reps. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), James Clyburn (D-S.C.), Norm Dicks (D-Wash), John Spratt Jr. (D-S.C.), Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Gresham Barrett (R-S.C.), all of whom represent districts and states that currently store spent commercial or defense nuclear waste.
"This resolution sends a clear message that members of Congress on both sides of the aisle will continue actively working to keep the Yucca Mountain license moving forward," Hastings said.
Earlier this month DOE officially filed to withdraw its license application for the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, with prejudice -- meaning the site could never again be considered for a repository (E&ENews PM, March 3).
Instead a 15-member Blue Ribbon Commission will review and consider alternative means to manage U.S. nuclear waste including interim storage, reprocessing and different geologic formations for a final repository. That commission will hold its first meeting tomorrow and must produce a draft report in about 18 months.
But that timeline is not acceptable for states with nuclear waste sitting on-site, Inslee said.
"Taxpayers have already spent more than $10 billion on Yucca Mountain, compiling 20 years of data that inform us that this is the best choice to securely store tons of nuclear waste," Inslee said. "Keeping waste scattered across the country, or in the case of Washington state at Hanford, is no longer an option. We have a solution to this problem and we must move forward."
Spratt, chairman of the House Budget Committee, said he would do "all I can to make sure some funding goes to defend the Yucca Mountain license application this year."
Upton noted that despite the administration's decision to withdraw from the Yucca project, taxpayers are still paying about $750 million in fees per year on electricity generated by nuclear power for the project. The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and the Nuclear Energy Institute are currently exploring their legal options to address this issue, the groups announced recently.
The resolution of disapproval and comments by the bill sponsors echo many questions directed at Energy Secretary Steven Chu and other members of the administration in multiple hearings on the DOE budget in the past few months both in the House and the Senate. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, dedicated a floor speech on the matter last week.
Chu argues that the science does not support a repository at Yucca and the United States should reconsider its waste management policy based on advances in technology and science. Chu will appear before the House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee this afternoon to defend DOE's $28.4 billion proposed 2011 spending budget, which includes no appropriation for Yucca.
A group of House Democrats and Republicans introduced a resolution yesterday to stop the Obama administration from ending the nuclear waste repository program at Yucca Mountain, Nev., and to save important project data.
The resolution of disapproval aims to stop the Energy Department from using appropriated funds to end the project and to preserve "all scientific and site specific file and data related to Yucca Mountain," said a statement from Rep. Doc Hastings' (R-Wash.) office.
Joining Hastings on the measure are Reps. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), James Clyburn (D-S.C.), Norm Dicks (D-Wash), John Spratt Jr. (D-S.C.), Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Gresham Barrett (R-S.C.), all of whom represent districts and states that currently store spent commercial or defense nuclear waste.
"This resolution sends a clear message that members of Congress on both sides of the aisle will continue actively working to keep the Yucca Mountain license moving forward," Hastings said.
Earlier this month DOE officially filed to withdraw its license application for the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, with prejudice -- meaning the site could never again be considered for a repository (E&ENews PM, March 3).
Instead a 15-member Blue Ribbon Commission will review and consider alternative means to manage U.S. nuclear waste including interim storage, reprocessing and different geologic formations for a final repository. That commission will hold its first meeting tomorrow and must produce a draft report in about 18 months.
But that timeline is not acceptable for states with nuclear waste sitting on-site, Inslee said.
"Taxpayers have already spent more than $10 billion on Yucca Mountain, compiling 20 years of data that inform us that this is the best choice to securely store tons of nuclear waste," Inslee said. "Keeping waste scattered across the country, or in the case of Washington state at Hanford, is no longer an option. We have a solution to this problem and we must move forward."
Spratt, chairman of the House Budget Committee, said he would do "all I can to make sure some funding goes to defend the Yucca Mountain license application this year."
Upton noted that despite the administration's decision to withdraw from the Yucca project, taxpayers are still paying about $750 million in fees per year on electricity generated by nuclear power for the project. The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and the Nuclear Energy Institute are currently exploring their legal options to address this issue, the groups announced recently.
The resolution of disapproval and comments by the bill sponsors echo many questions directed at Energy Secretary Steven Chu and other members of the administration in multiple hearings on the DOE budget in the past few months both in the House and the Senate. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, dedicated a floor speech on the matter last week.
Chu argues that the science does not support a repository at Yucca and the United States should reconsider its waste management policy based on advances in technology and science. Chu will appear before the House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee this afternoon to defend DOE's $28.4 billion proposed 2011 spending budget, which includes no appropriation for Yucca.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
WSJ: Outgoing Regulator Slams Obama's Handling Of Yucca
By Stephen Power
Of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL404 words
9 March 201018:20Dow Jones News ServiceDJEnglish
(c) 2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The Obama administration's decision to terminate a proposed nuclear-waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev., "does not seem to rest on factual findings" and is likely to complicate efforts to find a solution for managing nuclear waste "for years to come," a federal regulator said Tuesday.
The comments by Dale Klein--a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission --represent an unusual public rebuke to the Obama administration from a commission whose members tend to refrain from publicly weighing in on matters before them. The NRC is weighing a request by the Obama administration to withdraw a license application in favor of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. That application was submitted by the George W. Bush administration in 2008, over the fierce objections of Nevada lawmakers--most prominently, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.).
(This story and related background material will be available on The Wall Street Journal Web site, WSJ.com.)
Klein's comments are of limited significance because he has announced plans to step down from the commission once the U.S. Senate confirms his successor. But his remarks could give ammunition to Republicans in Congress who support the proposed repository.
"In my personal view ... I have found the handling of this matter from a national policy perspective ... unfortunate," Klein said in a speech before a conference of nuclear industry officials in Rockville, Md. "The administration's handling of the matter has already led to the filing of a number of lawsuits and clouded the path forward in a number of significant ways for years to come ... In my opinion, the administration's stated rationale for changing course does not seem to rest on factual findings and thus does not bolster the credibility of our government to handle this matter competently."
Klein was appointed to the NRC in 2006 by then-President George W. Bush and served as its chairman for several years.
Spokespersons at the White House and Department of Energy didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. The administration has said it believes there are better options for disposing of nuclear waste than Yucca. It has cited improvements in scientists' understanding of some technical issues surrounding nuclear-waste disposal since the 1980s, when the Yucca was initially identified as a possible repository site. [ 03-09-10 1920ET ]
Of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL404 words
9 March 201018:20Dow Jones News ServiceDJEnglish
(c) 2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The Obama administration's decision to terminate a proposed nuclear-waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev., "does not seem to rest on factual findings" and is likely to complicate efforts to find a solution for managing nuclear waste "for years to come," a federal regulator said Tuesday.
The comments by Dale Klein--a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission --represent an unusual public rebuke to the Obama administration from a commission whose members tend to refrain from publicly weighing in on matters before them. The NRC is weighing a request by the Obama administration to withdraw a license application in favor of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. That application was submitted by the George W. Bush administration in 2008, over the fierce objections of Nevada lawmakers--most prominently, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.).
(This story and related background material will be available on The Wall Street Journal Web site, WSJ.com.)
Klein's comments are of limited significance because he has announced plans to step down from the commission once the U.S. Senate confirms his successor. But his remarks could give ammunition to Republicans in Congress who support the proposed repository.
"In my personal view ... I have found the handling of this matter from a national policy perspective ... unfortunate," Klein said in a speech before a conference of nuclear industry officials in Rockville, Md. "The administration's handling of the matter has already led to the filing of a number of lawsuits and clouded the path forward in a number of significant ways for years to come ... In my opinion, the administration's stated rationale for changing course does not seem to rest on factual findings and thus does not bolster the credibility of our government to handle this matter competently."
Klein was appointed to the NRC in 2006 by then-President George W. Bush and served as its chairman for several years.
Spokespersons at the White House and Department of Energy didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. The administration has said it believes there are better options for disposing of nuclear waste than Yucca. It has cited improvements in scientists' understanding of some technical issues surrounding nuclear-waste disposal since the 1980s, when the Yucca was initially identified as a possible repository site. [ 03-09-10 1920ET ]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)